A Set For All Seasons

[NRJyzr]

[quote name='oldschoolrocker' timestamp='1374929791' post='7549224']
By the letter of the law, as per one persimmon tourney website, the classic bag is defined with forged blades only and require them to be pre 1980.[/quote]
That would likely disqualify me. I only have one or two sets in that range, most of mine have-been/are from the 80s.
Not that they care. LOL

[quote]
They also make mention of limiting the wedge loft to not to exceed 56*.
[/quote]

I find this silly. There are a LOT of wedges from pre-1950 that were 60°, or even 58°. The 56° SW appears to be a creation of the time the PW was moved forward to 50° from 52°. Or such is the evidence I've found.

Again, not that they would care. LOL

[ScooterMcTavish]

Hey Smitty,

Good form-based discussion, and I like the criteria you set up (forged, steel shaft wood woods) and OSR's suggestion regarding 56* wedges. However, as much as I argue about my Eye2s being classic, I think any cavity back, by nature, was engineered for forgiveness, and must be left out. So I agree that forged MB regardless of era (pure mb, no gi features like the ARC Blades had) are the only "approved" irons.

They will stay in my Ping bag, but not in my bag for all seasons.

Hogan Apex Edge then gets left out, as does the Hogan Magnum (hee hee). Think the only thing the Magnum was engineered for was ugliness. Mind you, it's cast so technically out.

No hybrids - in 1986 a hybrid was a 7w.

What about putter though? Ping Ansers have been around long enough that I'd hate to disqualify an entire genre of putters. I think the main qualifications for putter should no insert, no face milling, and pre-1988.

NRJyzr, my oldest irons are actually my Ping Eye2s, lol.

Thoughts?

[rhh7]

Scooter's posts in this thread have changed my whole attitude about golf. I will soon be 67, and I have been almost killing myself trying to recapture the scores I could shoot in the past. I played 8 rounds this year, walking and carrying my bag, feeling smug that I could do so. Despite intensive practice, my scores ranged between 95-105. My high expectations were frustrating me, killing any joy I might have gained from the game. For my last round, I went back to my Wilson Staff FG-51 Tour Blades, and 4 steel-shafted, steel-head woods. I hit 6 of 6 fairways on the front nine, hit 3 greens in regulation, and shot 46...my best front nine this year by 4 strokes. When I got to the 10th tee box, I realized that I really did not have the strength or the energy to push myself for another 9 holes. I put my clubs in the trunk, and drove home for a hot shower, and a cold beer! For the rest of this very short Canadian season, I will probably spend most of my time in one-hour sessions at the driving range, chipping in the back yard, and putting on my basement carpet. These activities are more enjoyable and relaxing for me, than pushing myself to pursue a "number on a paper". Thanks, Scooter!

[stixman]

My understanding about the Ping putter was that Karsten Solheim was supposed to have announced that ' I have made a putter for players who can't putt'.
If so, then no matter how 'old' or 'classic' it may be alleged to be by it's adherents,, because of the intent of it's origins it has no place in a 'real' golfers bag, not in this company anyway..

[dbuck47]

i am ok with forged blades of any vintage, really. I don't see a lot of difference in the KZG's or Titleist MB's and my old Staffs--maybe a slightly larger head. I don't see cutting off at 1980--The FG-17's came out in 80 or 81 and are almost indistinguishable from my Tour Blades except for the FG-17 stamp and a slightly different grind on the back/bottom of the muscle. Also, while forged is preferable, there are some early Clevelands that I think were cast. What about Hogan Directors? They are not cavity back, but there was some weight shifting and the sole modified a bit. My Frankenseven was made from a Hogan Director and it certainly feels like a blade.

I am wishy-washy on the PING Anser. Certainly the heel toe weighting was to help with twisting and off-center hits, but they have been around since ?? late sixties-early seventies?

As to woods, I lean toward wood. I did take out my Lynx Boom Boom from about 1992 and compare it to my Tony Penna and Joe Powell drivers. Other than the metal, it is almost the same. Same head shape and size, same length steel shaft. I also have an old Hogan metal driver. The only thing I can say about these that makes them different from wood, is that each could be made virtually identical. Each with the same specs would be the same, which of course is not true with wood. My Boom Boom and even more so that old Hogan are certainly not forgiving.

With wedges, surely some players bent their wedges greater than 56?

To me, a traditional or vintage bag is wood and blades. My personal putter is a heel shafted flanged blade, but I think I would be ok with a PING in bronze or stainless with no insert. Also, the mallet has been around forever, ie Ray Cook and others. To me, the RAM Zebra may be a little too far.

[Kirasdad]

Julius Boros won the Phoenix Open in , I believe '66 or '67 with an Anser. Ben Hogan had a 58-60 lob in his bag in the mid fifties.

Just FYI.

[ScooterMcTavish]

LOL...as usual, we're all in agreement!

[profsmitty]

Scooter - I love all of this! Somewhere, we're going to come to some really broad agreement or, at least, figure out where we disagree. Right now, it seems that we sort of agree that it is the issue of "wood" woods that we all (more or less) agree.

Now the question of head size is bound to pop up (not to mention shaft material). I noticed that Louisville Golf is really pushing a 300 CC persimmon head mounted on a graphite shaft. I'm not sure how I feel about this. Seems to me to be a pretty open concession to the "length" crowd.

I'm wondering if the 300 CC head wouldn't be too heavy for a steel shaft. The graphite shaft would make it just another "big 'ole" driver head. But, again that's just muddying the waters. I just can't understand the fixation on head size. The only advantage would be to mitigate the impact of a misfit shot, IMHO. This would add nothing to the inherent beauty to the driver and this would violate my commitment to beauty over performance.

WOW, what a complicated subject, friends! I love this discussion on so many levels.

[birly-shirly]

[quote name='stixman' timestamp='1374943340' post='7550046'] My understanding about the Ping putter was that Karsten Solheim was supposed to have announced that ' I have made a putter for players who can't putt'. If so, then no matter how 'old' or 'classic' it may be alleged to be by it's adherents,, because of the intent of it's origins it has no place in a 'real' golfers bag, not in this company anyway.. [/quote]

What if that was just marketing flannel by Ping?

Theodore Jorgensen was a physicist who wrote a book on the physics of golf, and he estimated that the theoretical, nevermind the practical, limitations on head design meant that the advantages of perimeter weighting would be highly marginal.

I see your point that the intent is to make the game easier - but then I would maintain that a large part of the appeal of classic clubs is that many of the highly touted technical innovations of the last 30 years aren't nearly so impressive in practice as they sound in theory. Based on that, I think that most golfers should relax, and play the clubs they like rather than the clubs that they think will help their score the most (doomed to be a poor rate of return, IMO).

I've noticed that many golfers, used to super-high MOI putter designs, now refer to Anser-type putters as "blades" - and hard to use at that!

Personally, I think Karsten was as much of an artist (albeit a highly idiosyncratic one) as an engineer. I love his original putter designs because I think they offer great looks, sound and feel - and not because I believe they offer an engineering solution to the putting problem.

Pings obviously aren't in the same bracket as forged blades and persimmon - but I maintain that they (at least down to the mid to late 1980s) deserve "classic" status on the basis that they were great, original, ground-breaking, highly playable and MASSIVELY imitated designs - plus Karsten Solheim had an ethos of high quality and durable manufacturing and customer support that few competitors could match.

[birly-shirly]

[quote name='dbuck47' timestamp='1374950484' post='7550526'] [...]As to woods, I lean toward wood. I did take out my Lynx Boom Boom from about 1992 and compare it to my Tony Penna and Joe Powell drivers. Other than the metal, it is almost the same. Same head shape and size, same length steel shaft. I also have an old Hogan metal driver. The only thing I can say about these that makes them different from wood, is that each could be made virtually identical. Each with the same specs would be the same, which of course is not true with wood. My Boom Boom and even more so that old Hogan are certainly not forgiving. [...] [/quote]

I think there's a respectable argument that metal woods would never have supplanted wooden heads if the cost of manufacturing hadn't been MUCH less. How many businesses would pass up the opportunity to manufacture a product for less and sell it at a premium based on "technological superiority"?

[NRJyzr]

[quote name='profsmitty' timestamp='1375004513' post='7553708']
Scooter - I love all of this! Somewhere, we're going to come to some really broad agreement or, at least, figure out where we disagree. Right now, it seems that we sort of agree that it is the issue of "wood" woods that we all (more or less) agree.

Now the question of head size is bound to pop up (not to mention shaft material). I noticed that Louisville Golf is really pushing a 300 CC persimmon head mounted on a graphite shaft. I'm not sure how I feel about this. Seems to me to be a pretty open concession to the "length" crowd.

I'm wondering if the 300 CC head wouldn't be too heavy for a steel shaft. The graphite shaft would make it just another "big 'ole" driver head. But, again that's just muddying the waters. I just can't understand the fixation on head size. The only advantage would be to mitigate the impact of a misfit shot, IMHO. This would add nothing to the inherent beauty to the driver and this would violate my commitment to beauty over performance.

WOW, what a complicated subject, friends! I love this discussion on so many levels.
[/quote]

It's not actually 300cc. The size of the head, viewed from the top, is such that it would be 300cc (or 280cc, or whatever they say it is), if it weren't for the scooped out crown (ala the Cleveland HiBore driver). I believe it's actually about 250cc in terms of actual displacement.

They refer to it as being on a 300cc chassis.

[scomac2002]

[quote name='rhh7' timestamp='1374943204' post='7550034']
Scooter's posts in this thread have changed my whole attitude about golf. I will soon be 67, and I have been almost killing myself trying to recapture the scores I could shoot in the past. I played 8 rounds this year, walking and carrying my bag, feeling smug that I could do so. Despite intensive practice, my scores ranged between 95-105. My high expectations were frustrating me, killing any joy I might have gained from the game.
[/quote]

I know just how you feel, rhh7. For me the secret to enjoying myself more on the course was two fold; pick your playing partners carefully and don't keep score (or at least have someone else do it )

I have two regular games most weeks; one with a bowling buddy that seems to be more about the exercise of walking 18 than winning or losing or targeting a score. The other is with three blokes of varied backgrounds and experiences that is as much about story telling and good natured ribbing than who scored what. It works for me as I always have a smile on my face when we're finished. As soon as golf gets serious, the fun gets sucked out of it real quick! Have you ever noticed how people quit talking when a score is on the line?

[oldschoolrocker]

I have tried to develop a philosophy akin to kaizen with respect to my golf game. Also if I take more of an approach along the lines of Zen and the Art of Archery I find myself leaving the course with more of a happy face than when I was a slave to purely numbers.

Don't get me wrong I still enjoy the achievement of stringing together 18 holes of swings and putts that result in a low number, but it is no longer the driving force behind my play.

Golf has turned into a joyous game that I can find pleasure in even when cleaning the clubs or getting in a little mirror practice in the back yard.

[Swoosh-Thud]

Why would you use different clubs? Makes no sense at all.

S2H2 D,3,5 with Sandvik Ti shafts (If you want persimmon- CC RC85 & TC15 3&5 woods with Sandvik Ti shafts)

Golden Ram Tour Grinds FM 6.5

TW Cobalt wedges

Zebra putter

[stixman]

[quote name='birly-shirly' timestamp='1375015661' post='7554026']
[quote name='stixman' timestamp='1374943340' post='7550046'] My understanding about the Ping putter was that Karsten Solheim was supposed to have announced that ' I have made a putter for players who can't putt'. If so, then no matter how 'old' or 'classic' it may be alleged to be by it's adherents,, because of the intent of it's origins it has no place in a 'real' golfers bag, not in this company anyway.. [/quote]

What if that was just marketing flannel by Ping?

Theodore Jorgensen was a physicist who wrote a book on the physics of golf, and he estimated that the theoretical, nevermind the practical, limitations on head design meant that the advantages of perimeter weighting would be highly marginal.

I see your point that the intent is to make the game easier - but then I would maintain that a large part of the appeal of classic clubs is that many of the highly touted technical innovations of the last 30 years aren't nearly so impressive in practice as they sound in theory. Based on that, I think that most golfers should relax, and play the clubs they like rather than the clubs that they think will help their score the most (doomed to be a poor rate of return, IMO).

I've noticed that many golfers, used to super-high MOI putter designs, now refer to Anser-type putters as "blades" - and hard to use at that!

Personally, I think Karsten was as much of an artist (albeit a highly idiosyncratic one) as an engineer. I love his original putter designs because I think they offer great looks, sound and feel - and not because I believe they offer an engineering solution to the putting problem.

Pings obviously aren't in the same bracket as forged blades and persimmon - but I maintain that they (at least down to the mid to late 1980s) deserve "classic" status on the basis that they were great, original, ground-breaking, highly playable and MASSIVELY imitated designs - plus Karsten Solheim had an ethos of high quality and durable manufacturing and customer support that few competitors could match.
[/quote]

Great response, nearly 'game, set and match'....but not quite.
While the advantage, realistically marginal as you say, of high MOI putters is that a more consistent strike may be obtained., To a touch and feel player this may well be quite limiting. In fact the only way these putters work is if the ball is struck close to the centre point (may or may not be the sweet spot). The advantage of a true blade is that different effects may be conjured by not hitting the ball out of the centre of the blade. Try hitting a Ping Anser out of the toe on a slippery downhiller to see what I mean, or try hitting it out of the heel to hold the ball against a right to left slope. This is stuff which is meat and drink to old school blade putters (mine is a 1950s flanged blade by Donaldsons of Glasgow, a firm unknown except to the hickory brigade). I have no problem with anything you say and applaud your presentation. My feeling is that the Ping style of putter started a process of both de-skilling and removing artistry from the most important scoring element of the game. I know this is swimming against the tide of progress but it is why I find it difficult to find a place for Pings etc in my bag.

[oldschoolrocker]

Agree with Stix on the lost art of putting. Use a strike towards the toe to deaden it a bit on a slipply downhiller, open or close the blade for a desired effect when needed. I find my old bullseye easier to adjust to different green speeds and conditions as well. Can use anything from shoulder rocking to pop stroke and get the rock rolling.

[birly-shirly]

Stixman and OSR - I strongly suspect that your putting might be a bit better than mine. What a deplorable means to winning a debate!

There are however 2 things I'd like to add here - based on some long held prejudices and some haphazardly hit balls today.

1. I went to the range this afternoon and found a cheap Ping Eye 2 1 iron. I already have a set of 2 - SW, so this rounds out the set nicely. However, the rest of the clubs that I had at the range were Apex IIs. I ended up hitting the Ping against the Hogan 2 iron and my strong impression is that NO amount of perimeter weighting adds as much forgiveness as 4 or so degrees of extra loft.

2. I also went putting with an Anser style early (prior to their infatuation with hi-vis graphics) Cobra, and a Bullseye-style Golden Goose. Practicing 50 foot lag putts with batches of 6 balls, I couldn't see any significant performance advantage in the heel-toe weighted design. What I did get though, from the blade putter, was a very vivid and pleasing sensation when I struck a putt absolutely pure. The poorer strikes weren't punished dreadfully - it's just that the sweet strikes were very rewarding in a tactile sense.

That, in a nutshell, is my interpretation of the whole blades vers cavity back debate. I think the differences in performance are commonly exaggerated - but I think 2 differences are real enough.

Blades are more rewarding when you really flush one - and, by contrast, mishits may feel worse than they really are. But I'm not convinced that there is any real advantage in either workability or distance to having the weight concentrated behind the ball. Nevertheless, I can see the attraction.

Perimeter weighted clubs have, IMO, a bit of smoke and mirrors about them. I don't think they save many shots - but I do think they flatter your worst shots in terms of feel. I think the higher MOI provides a form of vibration damping. I can see the attraction of that too. That's how I imagine Ping was able to sell millions of sets of exclusively stiff-shafted clubs to hackers.

Lastly, here's a conundrum. Seve persuaded Trevino to get his first Ping putter by demonstrating how you could hit a putt out of the toe and still not come up short. And yet, Seve also wrote that he used to deliberately hit his Anser out of the toe for a softer hit on delicate downhill and breaking putts.

[oldschoolrocker]

BS I have owned about every style of putter over the last 40 years and I always go back to a standard blade style perhaps because it is what I cut my putting teeth on and when I am at my best I am all feel. I recently took my bullseye, Ping Craz E, and a Cleveland classic to a SAMS unit for data comparison.
As for the consistency of stroke the Ping won on paper, but I holed more putts with the bullseye. Go figure.
That said the best stretch of putting I have ever had was with an early model Ping Pal. The shaft broke and it was never the same so it went the way of the bay a few years back.

[birly-shirly]

I can believe it.

I saw an interview with, I think, Bettinardi. Some boutique putter guy anyway. And he was asked what he thought would happen on tour if the endorsement money was taken out of the equation. He said that he thought fields would be full of Ping Ansers. Not because that's necessarily the best design or execution - but just because that's what the current generation of tour pros mostly grew up playing. Lots to be said for familiarity - as Rory might say...

[ScooterMcTavish]

[quote name='stixman' timestamp='1375046081' post='7556482']
[quote name='birly-shirly' timestamp='1375015661' post='7554026']
[quote name='stixman' timestamp='1374943340' post='7550046'] My understanding about the Ping putter was that Karsten Solheim was supposed to have announced that ' I have made a putter for players who can't putt'. If so, then no matter how 'old' or 'classic' it may be alleged to be by it's adherents,, because of the intent of it's origins it has no place in a 'real' golfers bag, not in this company anyway.. [/quote]

What if that was just marketing flannel by Ping?

Theodore Jorgensen was a physicist who wrote a book on the physics of golf, and he estimated that the theoretical, nevermind the practical, limitations on head design meant that the advantages of perimeter weighting would be highly marginal.

I see your point that the intent is to make the game easier - but then I would maintain that a large part of the appeal of classic clubs is that many of the highly touted technical innovations of the last 30 years aren't nearly so impressive in practice as they sound in theory. Based on that, I think that most golfers should relax, and play the clubs they like rather than the clubs that they think will help their score the most (doomed to be a poor rate of return, IMO).

I've noticed that many golfers, used to super-high MOI putter designs, now refer to Anser-type putters as "blades" - and hard to use at that!

Personally, I think Karsten was as much of an artist (albeit a highly idiosyncratic one) as an engineer. I love his original putter designs because I think they offer great looks, sound and feel - and not because I believe they offer an engineering solution to the putting problem.

Pings obviously aren't in the same bracket as forged blades and persimmon - but I maintain that they (at least down to the mid to late 1980s) deserve "classic" status on the basis that they were great, original, ground-breaking, highly playable and MASSIVELY imitated designs - plus Karsten Solheim had an ethos of high quality and durable manufacturing and customer support that few competitors could match.
[/quote]

Great response, nearly 'game, set and match'....but not quite.
While the advantage, realistically marginal as you say, of high MOI putters is that a more consistent strike may be obtained., To a touch and feel player this may well be quite limiting. In fact the only way these putters work is if the ball is struck close to the centre point (may or may not be the sweet spot). The advantage of a true blade is that different effects may be conjured by not hitting the ball out of the centre of the blade. Try hitting a Ping Anser out of the toe on a slippery downhiller to see what I mean, or try hitting it out of the heel to hold the ball against a right to left slope. This is stuff which is meat and drink to old school blade putters (mine is a 1950s flanged blade by Donaldsons of Glasgow, a firm unknown except to the hickory brigade). I have no problem with anything you say and applaud your presentation. My feeling is that the Ping style of putter started a process of both de-skilling and removing artistry from the most important scoring element of the game. I know this is swimming against the tide of progress but it is why I find it difficult to find a place for Pings etc in my bag.
[/quote]

This is a great post.

As a product of my age, I grew up envying those who had Ansers etc. as I played with an old brass putter. I can't even describe the putter...let's see if google can help....

nope.

It was a solid chunk of metal, wider at the toe than the heel where the shaft went in. It had a rather short blade too, no flange. Difficult to describe.

But yes, there was an art to putting. I remember reading a Golf magazine back in the 80's, and they talked about how player would practice putting off the heel to soften their stroke when playing the slick greens of Augusta. I used to do this on my local muni where the only difference between the greens and the parking lot was the color.

Think even the Golfsmith putter is coming out of the bag to be replaced with an old Acushnet style bullseye with a flange on it. I forgot that putting was more than a SBST swing trying to hit the ball in the centre on the line you licked before putting. It's like playing blades - let's take away some of the mechanics, and put some of the feel (or art as it was so well-described) back in the putting game.

As the younger guys say, this thread delivers.

[profsmitty]

I think that at some future time, people will look back on the period of 1980-1998 (or so) as the time that golf went through a significant paradigm shift - from game to sport. Why I think this happened and what the ramifications of this shift were is a story for another day. It will hopefully be the topic for the next "front page" article I write. (BTW, the long awaited - by me anyway - "Finding a game we didn't know we'd lost" should be out very soon. I think that will be the title anyway.)

In the meantime, you might want to brush up on a philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn and the theory of paradigm shifts.

[url="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift"]https://en.wikipedia.../Paradigm_shift[/url]

Sorry to do this to you but it will only hurt for a minute but it might change the way that you look at everything you see, read, and hear about golf.

[ScooterMcTavish]

[quote name='rhh7' timestamp='1374943204' post='7550034']
Scooter's posts in this thread have changed my whole attitude about golf. I will soon be 67, and I have been almost killing myself trying to recapture the scores I could shoot in the past. I played 8 rounds this year, walking and carrying my bag, feeling smug that I could do so. Despite intensive practice, my scores ranged between 95-105. My high expectations were frustrating me, killing any joy I might have gained from the game. For my last round, I went back to my Wilson Staff FG-51 Tour Blades, and 4 steel-shafted, steel-head woods. I hit 6 of 6 fairways on the front nine, hit 3 greens in regulation, and shot 46...my best front nine this year by 4 strokes. When I got to the 10th tee box, I realized that I really did not have the strength or the energy to push myself for another 9 holes. I put my clubs in the trunk, and drove home for a hot shower, and a cold beer! For the rest of this very short Canadian season, I will probably spend most of my time in one-hour sessions at the driving range, chipping in the back yard, and putting on my basement carpet. These activities are more enjoyable and relaxing for me, than pushing myself to pursue a "number on a paper". Thanks, Scooter!
[/quote]

No, thank you for reading, and am happy to hear if my often incoherent ramblings have given you some motivation to enjoy something you should already enjoy. Though what's more Canadian than golf and beer, eh?

There's something about the short season that makes us Canucks obsessive about shooting an awesome score everytime we go out. It's like we know we have only so many rounds before the snow flies, and we want to get the most out of every one of them.

Good to have "the most" maybe not mean the score.

[oldschoolrocker]

[quote name='profsmitty' timestamp='1375066950' post='7558628']
I think that at some future time, people will look back on the period of 1980-1998 (or so) as the time that golf went through a significant paradigm shift - from game to sport. Why I think this happened and what the ramifications of this shift were is a story for another day. It will hopefully be the topic for the next "front page" article I write. (BTW, the long awaited - by me anyway - "Finding a game we didn't know we'd lost" should be out very soon. I think that will be the title anyway.)

In the meantime, you might want to brush up on a philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn and the theory of paradigm shifts.

[url="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift"]https://en.wikipedia.../Paradigm_shift[/url]

Sorry to do this to you but it will only hurt for a minute but it might change the way that you look at everything you see, read, and hear about golf.
[/quote]

Prof,
You have piqued my interest. Really enjoying the read from all who contribute to this thread. I can only imagine a couple of foursomes of us slaying the dragon by day and then exchanging philosophical enlightenments after the round. Renaissance golf outing at its finest.

SMac,
Great idea for the thread.
You should be proud of your baby. My how she's grown. Kudos.

Randy

[ScooterMcTavish]

Thanks OSR, though the true credit belongs to Kirasdad - he brought the subject forward, and I have only been the enthusiastic and willing psychoanylytical guinea pig.

A renaissance round indeed! Like classic golf, philosophical debate is also a shrinking art. Again, a societal change, where people used to get post-secondary education to learn and expand their horizons. Now, everything is career-orientated, and liberal arts such as philosophy, sociology, religion, political science, and psychology are looked upon with disdain.

So instead of creating people with a broader and healthier perspective on the world both within and outside our borders, instead of helping people to learn, think, and understand, we instead create an aggressive pack of type A business people. And to take this back to golf, this manifests itself in the competitive, aggressive, materialistic behavior we witness both on and off the course.

One of the best things about philosophical debate is that two people can disagree, and it is fine. Philosophy is about understanding and belief, and the sharing of ideas is as important for the sharer as it is the sharee. It is not about winning a debate, it is an attempt to understand others and be understood yourself.

[birly-shirly]

[quote name='profsmitty' timestamp='1375066950' post='7558628']
I think that at some future time, people will look back on the period of 1980-1998 (or so) as the time that golf went through a significant paradigm shift - from game to sport. Why I think this happened and what the ramifications of this shift were is a story for another day. It will hopefully be the topic for the next "front page" article I write. (BTW, the long awaited - by me anyway - "Finding a game we didn't know we'd lost" should be out very soon. I think that will be the title anyway.)

In the meantime, you might want to brush up on a philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn and the theory of paradigm shifts.

[url="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift"]https://en.wikipedia.../Paradigm_shift[/url]

Sorry to do this to you but it will only hurt for a minute but it might change the way that you look at everything you see, read, and hear about golf.
[/quote]

I'm sure there was indeed a shift in that time period. In my opinion, there's a great explanation of how the market went in the words of Ely Callaway. His mantra was to make a product that was "demonstrably superior, and pleasingly different". Golf club innovation at the end of the 20th Century was a model of that. I think some of the "demonstrations" of superiority were specious - but concepts like MOI, CoR, head size, lightweight, frequency matching and others lend themselves to analysis and comparisons that stack up great in a graphic, if less vividly on the course.

The other accompanying factor is that much of this innovation was now highly visible. Back when MacGregor and Wilson owned the iron count, bags looked pretty much the same from a distance, or on TV. But the minute a set of Ping irons appeared on tour, they were instantly recognisable, irrespective of the name on the bag or the hat. It's hard to avoid the impression that club design now is driven hard by considerations of visible impact - or "How do we let the folks watching on TV know that Phil is using OUR clubs?"

Just look at what passes for modern blade design - TM RACs, Cally protos, Titleist Z blades. Does anyone want to argue that the "muscle pads" on the backs of those irons are dictated by function rather than visual differentiation?

Convince enough paying customers that golf really is a technological arms race, rather than a skill or an art, and you really do create a whole new market.

I'd argue too that the high degree of visual differentiation also enabled the growth of endorsement money and the 13 and 14 club deals that seem to be the rule now, rather than the exception.

I'm sure the game changed in other ways too - but it's my impression that the big change was marketing driven. That's how the club industry got taken over by a wine merchant, a clothing manufacturer and a ball-maker.

[NRJyzr]

[quote name='birly-shirly' timestamp='1375102437' post='7559948']
The other accompanying factor is that much of this innovation was now highly visible.
[/quote]

Which is how we got the Proforce shaft color scheme. And white drivers...

[ScooterMcTavish]

[quote name='birly-shirly' timestamp='1375102437' post='7559948']
I'm sure the game changed in other ways too - but it's my impression that the big change was marketing driven. That's how the club industry got taken over by a wine merchant, a clothing manufacturer and a ball-maker.
[/quote]

Wow, never really thought of it this way, but true. And with Puma acquiring Cobra, don't we have four clothing/shoe makers (Adidas - TM and Adams, Puma - Cobra, Nike - well Nike, Fila - Acushnet/Titleist) as heavy players in the industry. And yes, we have the wine merchant as well.

But especially in the 80's, the clothing/shoe manufacturers became associated with pop culture. From "Just do it!", to Run-DMC and "My Adidas", these manufacturers learned that people would [u]pay[/u] to wear their logos! People [u]pay to be your advertising[/u]! Really, where the marketing to young people and "branding" started its path towards ubiquitousness.

It seems the only golf "purist" major products left are the one ball-maker (Srixon/Dunlop - Cleveland), the engineer (Ping), and the legacy (Wilson Staff). Funny as this is generally the least flashy gear you'll see on any course.

Wow, thanks for the post. Never really thought about it, but this makes so much sense.

[oldschoolrocker]

[quote name='ScooterMcTavish' timestamp='1375099102' post='7559668']
Thanks OSR, though the true credit belongs to Kirasdad - he brought the subject forward, and I have only been the enthusiastic and willing psychoanylytical guinea pig.

A renaissance round indeed! Like classic golf, philosophical debate is also a shrinking art. Again, a societal change, where people used to get post-secondary education to learn and expand their horizons. Now, everything is career-orientated, and liberal arts such as philosophy, sociology, religion, political science, and psychology are looked upon with disdain.
[/quote]

Well said SMac,
In my past life working with Special Projects in the military to my stint, upon my retirement, as a production manager in manufacturing, to my present occupation as a robotic pilot, I have struggled, my feet mired in the clay amidst other A types, our eyes always on the prize. Do the deed at all cost our driving force.
How does this relate to golf you ask? I can tie it together best by quoting Sylvia Plath, The Bell Jar
" I felt my lungs inflate with the onrush of scenery -- air, mountains, trees, people. I thought, ‘This is what it is to be happy.’"

From the first time I stepped on a golf course to the last before my surgery no truer words could express my feelings about the game.

And the reason I choose to play the classic clubs if I am being totally honest, not the cash register type of honesty that is expected of man in a civilized society, but the hardest kind of honesty borne out of reaching into the black of ones self, that reason would be to take me back to a less complex time before my life, personally and professionally was driven by modern technology.

I don't deplore technology, with its glorious advances, I just need an escape and playing the classics allows me this excursion.

[ScooterMcTavish]

[quote name='oldschoolrocker' timestamp='1375108580' post='7560526']
And the reason I choose to play the classic clubs if I am being totally honest, not the cash register type of honesty that is expected of man in a civilized society, but the hardest kind of honesty borne out of reaching into the black of ones self...[/quote]

Very poetic in many ways. Like the discussion of liberal arts, or learning critical thinking, in our "me, me, me" society of today, self-realization and understanding of one's self and our limitations is something we are losing the capacity to do. I am of the opinion that one can never truly be happy (or at least fully actualized) as a human being until they "reach into the black", find the things that are poisoning their lives, and either kill them, or learn to contain them. We are all imperfect creations of our biology and environment, and in many cases have to learn to live with the imperfections. Not everything can be fixed.

But awareness that they exist is the first step to a happy life.

[quote name='oldschoolrocker' timestamp='1375108580' post='7560526']
I don't deplore technology, with its glorious advances, I just need an escape and playing the classics allows me this excursion.
[/quote]

To me the classics are a time-portal, where you can be taken back to a different time than the one we are in now. An interesting read is "The Progress Paradox" by Gregg Easterbrook. From the publisher:

[i]"In [b]The Progress Paradox[/b], Gregg Easterbrook draws upon three decades of wide-ranging research and thinking to make the persuasive assertion that almost all aspects of Western life have vastly improved in the past century--and yet today, most men and women feel less happy than in previous generations. Why this is so and what we should do about it is the subject of this book.

Between contemporary emphasis on grievances and the fears engendered by 9/11, today it is common to hear it said that life has started downhill, or that our parents had it better. But objectively, almost everyone in today’s United States or European Union lives better than his or her parents did.

Still, studies show that the percentage of the population that is happy has not increased in fifty years, while depression and stress have become ever more prevalent. The Progress Paradox explores why ever-higher living standards don’t seem to make us any happier. Detailing the emerging science of “positive psychology,” which seeks to understand what causes a person’s sense of well-being, Easterbrook offers an alternative to our culture of crisis and complaint. He makes a Compelling case that optimism, gratitude, and acts of forgiveness not only make modern life more fulfilling but are actually in our self-interest.

Seemingly insoluble problems of the past, such as crime in New York City and smog in Los Angeles, have proved more tractable than they were thought to be. Likewise, today’s “impossible” problems, such as global warming and Islamic terrorism, can be tackled too.

Like [b]The Tipping Point[/b], this book offers an affirming and constructive way of seeing the world anew. [b]The Progress Paradox [/b]will change the way you think about your place in the world, and about our collective ability to make it better."[/i]

I think the usual challenge is that the people who do not need to read the book do, while those who really need to read it, don't.

[jmck]

[quote name='profsmitty' timestamp='1375066950' post='7558628']
I think that at some future time, people will look back on the period of 1980-1998 (or so) as the time that golf went through a significant paradigm shift - from game to sport. Why I think this happened and what the ramifications of this shift were is a story for another day. It will hopefully be the topic for the next "front page" article I write. (BTW, the long awaited - by me anyway - "Finding a game we didn't know we'd lost" should be out very soon. I think that will be the title anyway.)

In the meantime, you might want to brush up on a philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn and the theory of paradigm shifts.

[url="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift"]https://en.wikipedia.../Paradigm_shift[/url]

Sorry to do this to you but it will only hurt for a minute but it might change the way that you look at everything you see, read, and hear about golf.
[/quote]

Interesting to think about golf transitioning from a game to a sport. I never really thought about it that way, but it does make a lot of sense, and is certainly a topic ripe for further investigation and discussion. I'll look forward to the article!

As far as paradigm shift in the equipment world, the introduction of the ProV is a perfect example. When steel shafted clubs replaced hickory shafted clubs, and then again when metal headed clubs replaced wooden headed clubs, you still had holdouts who stuck with the old technology for 10+ years. Langer winning the Masters with a Wood Bros. driver about a decade after Trevino won the PGA with a Taylor Made for instance--which funnily enough fits nearly perfectly with your early 80s to mid 90s time frame. But when that ProV came out, [i]everyone[/i] switched right away because [i]everyone[/i] instantly got 20 yards longer and 50% straighter. We've talked a lot about clubs in this thread, but you could also argue that the day Titleist launched the ProV was the end of the "classic golf" era and the beginning of the "modern golf" era.